Michael, there is a brief reference to this in George Eaton's introductory style book, "Photographic Chemistry" (1965 w/original copyright = 1957). It's in chapter 13, "Practical Color Processes".
Eaton lists B-41 in two tables: one is photomaterial vs process, the other lists basic steps in several processes. These basic steps do NOT say anything about time, temp, formulations, etc.
Here's excerpts with the basic info:
From Table IV, Material vs Process
Kodak Ektacolor Film, Type B B-41
Kodak Ektacolor Film, Type S C-22
Kodacolor Film C-22
Kodak Ektacolor Print Film C-22 or B-41
From Table V, here are the steps; note that the step descriptions for C-22 and B-41 are identical except for 9:
1. Developer, 2. Stop Bath, 3. Hardener, 4. Wash, 5. Bleach, 6. Wash, 7. Fixer, 8. Wash, [for step 9 see next part] 10. Dry.
In the case of C-22, step 9 is "Remove water droplets by wiping or with Kodak Photo-Flo Solution. In the case of B-41, step 9 is "Bathe in Kodak Photo-Flo Solution plus 3/4 oz. Kodak Formaldehyde per gal."
My best guess whould be that, aside from step 9, the two processes are fundamentally very similar (possibly even identical) on the basis of either being ok for "Ektacolor Print Film". The oddball seems to be that Type B film needs B-41 process; one could make many guesses as to why, but it seems doubtful that a conclusive answer is going to surface here.
I would suggest you just take the info as is and don't try to justify why it is so. If you are tempted to guess, here is a run of speculation to help dissuade you. Maybe the 'B' film had a new style ballast on the coupler and needed a bit of a certain solvent in the developer. Why then is that developer ok for "Ektacolor Print Film", but not for the "Type S" or Kodacolor? Well, maybe the latter films have issues with emulsion swelling, etc, in certain mix water conditions, but the former film has been toughened agains this. well, why not toughen the other film, etc, etc? Or maybe the "B" film releases a certain byproduct which affects some films but not others. So you can see what a slippery slope this speculating can lead even the layman to. Someone who knows the chemistry, like PE, could speculate on and on, going much much deeper, I'm sure.
BTW, I think it is perfectly ok for PE to not be aware of (or remember) a possibly obscure process of 40 or 50 years ago. To me, someone who understands things and can explain (at some level) is much more valuable than one who merely has access to trivia.